http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer
5 replies (most recent on top)
Absolutely!
Internally focused and full of people who are arrogant and ignorant.
I'm sure consolidating people into giant campuses will help with that...
"This is Intel 100%. The sad part is that I heard that Microsoft left this system years ago and the bottom is no longer summarily fired, whereas Intel went the opposite direction towards dysfunction.
I don't think it's an accident that this happened at Microsoft and Intel. I think this system evolves out of the arrogance of monopolistic market positions in that the external challenges don't seem to be there so you start to focus internally. When you look internally you see that you can create a more "fair" or "optimal" system by mimicking the external (people who don't work as hard fail, so inside we're going to make them fail). There are several problems with this artificial failure and the article does a good job at showing the infighting that it breeds from the "musical chairs problem". But nearly as destructive, which they hinted at, I think when you have this system you LOSE the paranoia for the external world. The internal world of competing against colleagues becomes 90% focus and the external 10% (without the forced firings it would be 10/90 the other way around). The system of rank and yank is the opposite of "only the paranoid survive"."
Most companies have figured out that this focal style creates horrible toxic culture.
BK doubles down on it. Because of course he does. Everything he does is 5 years too late.
This is Intel 100%. The sad part is that I heard that Microsoft left this system years ago and the bottom is no longer summarily fired, whereas Intel went the opposite direction towards dysfunction.
I don't think it's an accident that this happened at Microsoft and Intel. I think this system evolves out of the arrogance of monopolistic market positions in that the external challenges don't seem to be there so you start to focus internally. When you look internally you see that you can create a more "fair" or "optimal" system by mimicking the external (people who don't work as hard fail, so inside we're going to make them fail). There are several problems with this artificial failure and the article does a good job at showing the infighting that it breeds from the "musical chairs problem". But nearly as destructive, which they hinted at, I think when you have this system you LOSE the paranoia for the external world. The internal world of competing against colleagues becomes 90% focus and the external 10% (without the forced firings it would be 10/90 the other way around). The system of rank and yank is the opposite of "only the paranoid survive".
Staffers were rewarded not just for doing well but for making sure that their colleagues failed. As a result, the company was consumed by an endless series of internal knife fights. Potential market-busting businesses—such as e-book and smartphone technology—were killed, derailed, or delayed amid bickering and power plays.
That is crazy talk. How could that ever happen in a company when you reward people through a zero sum game that you position incorrectly as meritocracy.
to everthing, turn turn.